Quote:
Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas 
Wouldn't this be classic civil disobedience? He willingly and openly violated a law he thought to be wrong because he thought he should violate the law and teach. However, he accepted his punishment from the state because he was obligated to do so - if he does not face his punishment willingly, he endorses anarchy and abandons the principles which drove him to teach, despite his order to not teach.
So, maybe the issue isn't which obligation is stronger. If we disobey the law on principle, and then avoid punishment, have we abandon the principle which drove us to break the law initially?
|
But the fact remains that Socrates intentionally violated the law in the first instance by teaching, but refused to violate the law in the second instance, by not escaping. Whether he "made up" for violating the law is really not to the point. He should not have violated the law if he thought it was wrong to do so. You don't make it all right to violate a law by accepting punishment for doing so. (It would be absurd to argue that it was all right to murder someone as long as I accepted punishment for doing so).
Socrates's justification for violating the law (justification, not excuse) was that there was a higher law which he was obligated to obey. Namely that he was commanded by the gods to teach. But, Socrates has no such justification for escaping. (And that is exactly what Martin Luther King writes in his
Letter. He is obeying a higher law than the civil ordinances of Birmingham.